AI-driven learning maps, adaptive platforms, and student dashboards are just a few of the amazing technologies available in today’s schools. But take a step back and consider this: Who made the decision that such tools were useful? Who created their design? Who now gets to define what constitutes effective learning?
A new cadre of power brokers—intermediaries who sit between technology suppliers, education policymakers, and institutions—is becoming the answer, rather than principals or instructors. They work as procurement experts, data scientists, policy architects, and edtech advisors. Despite their extraordinary importance, they are rarely listed among the professors.
Instead of taking center stage in a classroom, they labor in the background, creating the structure that allows learning to take place. Their impact is especially noticeable in public systems where budget regulations, performance measures, and digital compatibility are becoming more and more important considerations when making decisions about education.
These players are influencing education’s mechanics and vision through pilot projects, policy frameworks, and consultancy positions. They are not inherently hostile. Actually, a lot of them are really good at bringing disparate systems together. However, it is worthwhile to inquire about the values that influence their choices.
Platforms, created by commercial companies but incorporated into public learning environments, have become more and more influential in classroom decisions during the last ten years. Canvas, PowerSchool, and Google Classroom are examples of tools that do more than just present content. They influence the educational experience’s timing, flow, and feedback. They subtly reinterpret learning itself through their design decisions.
| Topic | The Hidden Power Brokers of Modern Education |
|---|---|
| Core Focus | Non-state actors shaping education policy and practice |
| Key Actors | EdTech investors, global institutions, philanthropies |
| Main Tools of Influence | Funding, data metrics, policy advice |
| Geographic Reach | National and global education systems |
| Economic Driver | Market scalability and return on investment |
| Policy Impact | Curriculum reform, testing, digital platforms |
| Public Visibility | Limited and indirect |
| Societal Effect | Shifts in access, equity, and accountability |
| Contested Issues | Democracy, transparency, inclusion |
| Reference Website | https://www.oecd.org/education |
According to Carlos Ortegón and Mathias Decuypere, these individuals are “edtech brokers” who define the parameters of what schools today need rather than creating new ones. They convert learning into platforms. Their function is very creative: they establish a sort of soft architecture that limits how schools function while maintaining an air of neutrality by standardizing data flows and platform structures.
The conflict between decision-makers and service providers has considerably decreased as a result of this change. The procurement process becomes more efficient. Implementation speeds up. However, nuance is frequently crushed. The complexity of classroom interactions, the unpredictable nature of student development, and the trust that develops between educators and students are all difficult to include into optimization-focused systems.
One prominent voice in AI and education leadership, Dr. Mary Hemphill, has highlighted the importance of maintaining the human experience at the center. On this point, her work is very clear: tools should support instructors rather than take their place. The job of the educator is being reshaped into one that is more efficient but less relational by many of the existing systems.
This trend picked up speed throughout the pandemic. Taken by surprise, schools quickly embraced systems that could provide continuity. Brokers intervened with pre-made remedies throughout the crisis. The contracts belonged to them. They had the information. Above all, they enjoyed the confidence of decision-makers who were willing to show initiative.
Since then, that short-term partnership has solidified into a longer-term one. There are still several of the tools. The middlemen also do this. However, their authority is frequently unquestioned. A teacher may not have as much influence over a child’s academic trajectory as a data consultant creating a behavioral dashboard.
According to Michael L. Davis, education is now more of a mediated exchange than a direct service. Platforms, funders, and policy labs all function in a sort of synchronous loop where usage patterns, rather than always student outcomes, drive feedback and modification.
The emergence of computerized success indicators is especially worrisome. Engagement indicators, login frequency, or assessment completion speed can now be used to track a student’s progress. These markers are incredibly narrow even though they are very effective at being tracked. They frequently fall short in capturing resilience, originality, or curiosity.
Some platforms are even suggesting student interventions before a teacher has even identified an issue by utilizing predictive models. That may sound beneficial, even accountable. However, there is also a chance that a learner will be steered by algorithmic assumptions rather than human comprehension, a phenomenon known as anticipatory tagging.
This becomes significantly more complicated when considering equity. Data brokers promise insights that can bridge achievement gaps. However, the very systems they construct might be biased. Students who already face structural disadvantages may be penalized twice—once by circumstance and again by system design—if attendance or test scores take precedence as the primary indicators of risk.
Many of these intermediaries have become firmly ingrained in the operational framework of education through strategic collaborations with school districts. They provide performance tools, training materials, and dashboards. Some are surprisingly reasonably priced. Others come with government subsidies. They are hard to relax once adopted.
These tools are not intrinsically worthless. Access, documentation, and intervention tracking have all significantly improved. However, the fundamental question still stands: When platforms mediate every stage, who is making the decisions about education?
There is an urgent need for transparency. Teachers should be aware of how these resources influence their work. It is important for parents to know who created the systems used to assess their children. It is important for policymakers to consider whether democratic input is being subtly replaced by market efficiency.
For a long time, Dr. Hemphill has advocated for a hybrid strategy that maintains agency while embracing innovation. Her approach, which combines the depth and sensitivity of human-centered leadership with the speed and reach of technology, is very creative.
More academics have started to rebel in recent months. They are posing more challenging queries on algorithmic governance. They are calling for improved tool design representation. Some districts are even creating their own ethical guidelines for purchasing educational technology.
The lesson is obvious for early-stage firms entering this market: build for integrity rather than just efficiency. People who utilize platforms on a daily basis should provide comments. Instead than merely deploying systems, they should be co-created.
